General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFollow the Money
Eschaton wonders how likely it is (or isn't) that Reinhart and Rogoff's consequential error was an honest mistake, and makes a good general point in the process:
...adding, I think one of my PhD advisers, who has since passed away, was an exception to this. He thought (rightly!) that everyone is corrupt. Degrees of corruption, sure, but we all have our price...
(From http://www.eschatonblog.com/2013/04/follow-money.html)
Taking economic policy advice from Pete Peterson's team is like asking a widget salesperson if you should buy some widgets.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)but in a way it doesn't matter. The status quo economists are so committed to pushing the neo-con/neo-lib narrative that their 'conclusions' will always fit their fucked up formula.
Same it ever was.
Thanks for this post!
MsLeopard
(1,265 posts)"We're all whores. It's just a matter of our price."
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)This should be the top post!
mountain grammy
(26,571 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I'm embarrassed to admit that before this I never even knew there was some "academic" basis for our swan dive into austerity. I thought it was just some collective insanity on the part of the ruling classes. I wonder if this revelation will actually cause a course change? Not likely, I guess.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Billionaire's role in hiring decisions at Florida State University raises questions
A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)When rich and powerful people promote a contrary viewpoint to something with a solid scientific and/or historical basis, they will find "experts" who develop evidence to support their bias.
Whether their "experts" are honest skeptics or corrupt hacks really doesn't matter if it allows the deniers to waive around the science to support their self-serving goals.
In this case, a lot of the conventional wisdom for austerity comes from folks like the IMF that profits their supporters by imposing draconian terms on entire countries. They are global loan sharks that will exact their pound of flesh regardless of the truth or benefit of their demands.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Hard to argue that there is a pattern...look at climate change denial.
h2ebits
(632 posts)With all of the other news this week; it's important that we not let this news be relegated to the back burner. Each of us needs to do everything in our power to spread the word and get the truth out in the public domain--and KEEP IT THERE.
Once again, we have been led down the garden path by the obscenely wealthy. We--people everywhere--need to apply our own observations of the world around us and use our own critical thinking skills in the face of "facts" being force fed to us.
It's not just financial info that has false notes ringing through it--think of the hogwash being thrown at us about fracking, the XL Pipeline, GMO food products, coal, nuclear energy, AND why renewable energy won't work in America.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Fields of study. Everyone has a price and apparently these two sold out...would be interesting to know how much they got for their services.
Sad and dangerous thing...even our haloed halls of academia have been soiled by the feces of big money and wealthy interests.
byeya
(2,842 posts)look into this matter seriously and let the chips fall where they may.
You'd think the professional association of economists would have something to say but with all the crapola that's spewed from the U of Chicago, and other "name" universities over the years, you know such an organization has little interest in ethics and professional standards.
Oh yeah: Screw Pete Peterson
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...of as many known errors of this type that can be found. The study would examine how many times the "errors" work to the advantage of the argument being made, vs. to its disadvantage.
I would predict with a great degree of confidence, that the errors at least 75% of the time tend to support the argument being made, rather than detracting from it (probably closer to 90% but I'm being conservative).
On the other hand, that still does not prove intent. It may be subconscious: that is, if a result or a data point does not support your argument, you are more likely to examine it closely; while if it does support your argument, you are more likely to just chalk it up to another confirmation of the argument you already believe anyway.